Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
STATION
MSNBC 7
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
to increase automatically. president obama wants to spend more on education. that's tough. so these cuts go into effect, but they might find very quickly that it's very difficult to actually implement them. >> last thing here to you, chris, we're hearing about a couple of senators not going to be -- not going to seek re-election. talking about harkin, saxby chambliss. chambliss cited the gridlock in washington as part of the reason him wanting to step away. get your reaction to both of these men not seeking re-election. and also what are your thoughts on chambliss actually citing what's happening in washington as part of the reason for him wanting to get out of there? >> i think what we're seeing right now is a generational change in washington. chambliss and harkin and guys like that are part of that change. and it's interesting particularly in chambliss's case as you point out he does cite the partisan gridlock. but he's also part of that old republican guard. he's very close friends with house speaker john boehner for example. i think you're going to see as the republican party changes s
issue was obama, was the increase in spending, was essentially the expansion of government. or to put it a more abstract and grand way, the relationship between citizen and state which obviously was tilting towards state. so -- and there when the question is put in that way, the country shows itself to be a center-right country. had republicans been able to duplicate those conditions, that framework in 2012, they would have won. but it isn't the same election. 2010 was almost a purely ideological election, perhaps the most ideological since 1980. then you get to 2010 when you have a personality involved, and you have a figure who represents one side. romney is a good man. i like him. i think he's an honorable man. and i think he actually would have made an excellent president but he was a bad candidate, particularly in an election that could have been won had it been an election about ideas and philosophy. i think it would have been easily won had it been about ideas and philosophy. but number one, he wasn't the man, the best man on our side to make that case. and secondly, he decided
ultimately unless they get severe spending cuts and the obama administration is not going to give it to them. and you are going to watch the u.s. do crazy, crazy things this year. >> if you are right on those crazy, crazy things, then the rest of us are in for a dreadful, dread full time? >> dreadful. it is going to be so strange for the richest country on earth to cross their arms and say i'm not paying. imagine crossing your arms. you are going to see it this year. >> reporter: now, we have been asking our guests here for the riskometer. on this side we have is the u.s. a bigger threat to global growth in 2013. on this side the e.u. lutnic thinks the u.s. is by far the bigger. as you look overall most people still seem to believe europe is the biggest threat in 2013. by the way, speet tweet me wher think the biggest threat is. >> very official looking. did you make that yourself? >> don't you mock it? it works and it is doing a good job. >> we will have people tweet you and see what they feel about all of this but a lot of power players weighing in on whether or not there is greater risk h
was obama and as a scare, the stimulus committee increase in spending, the expansion of the government. or to put it in a more abstract and grand was the difference between federal and state which was tilting more toward state. when the question is put that way, the country shows itself to be center-right country. had republicans been able to duplicate those conditions, that framework in 2012, they would have won. but it is not the same election. 2010 is almost purely ideological election. perhaps the most ideological since 1980. then you get to 2010, when you have a personality involved and you have a figure represents one side. romney is a good man. i like him. i think he is an honorable man, and i think he would have made an excellent president. but he was a bad candidate particularly in an election that could have been one had been an election about ideas and philosophy. i think it would have been easily won had been about ideas and philosophy. but he was not the math -- he was not the best man on our side to make that case. secondly, he decided not to make the case either way and
in 2012. that's over twice as much as we were spending in 2003. we know president obama has deported record numbers of folks. so how much tougher can we get on the border? we've seen immigration rates decrease. you know, instead of working harder just throwing more money at the issue, what the president is focusing on is let's be smarter about it. let's focus on the technology to track illegal immigrants who are already here. let's think about using technology on the border. so the president can make a very strong case. i'm not too worried about that. i think that's the republican senators trying to look tough for their own party. >> now, richard, let me share this with you. that kind of struck me. a conservative latino group released a memo with some advice to republicans on how to talk about the issue. and in it they admonished them don't use phrases like this. don't use send them all back. elect fence. anchor baby. illegals. reagan. because he gave citizenship to immigrants back in the 1980s. i mean, it's almost like we know you guys aren't really serious and we know you are reall
obama is calling for. the red is where spending is going. spending is the problem, revenues are not the problem. if you keep chasing them they will hurt economic growth, shut down the economy and won't get the budget balanced. >> what i heard the president say was programs like social security and medicare and med aid critically important for our future and we need to have a bipartisan commitment to make them work. bob and i have been in a lot of meetings talking about deficit reduction. we need reform in the programs that mean they will live on to serve future generations. that's the message i took from the president. >> referring to bob corker to the left of the screen. the president has a full plate. not just the budget but the issue of guns, and this week he heads to las vegas for a speech about overhauling immigration. so the second term is already kicking off with plenty on his plate. >> all right. peter alexander, white house correspondent, thank you so much. >>> we want to turn now to our discussion this morning. bring in a reporter for "politico," anna -- and perry
in particular is what the clear space institute, i wanted to reticulated of the war and women. obama hasn't just kept his divisive hateful rhetoric to class warfare for work and spending. it's dividing of people, turning and people against businesses and corporations, based on faith, race. this is supposed to be his post-racial president he and that racial tensions are higher than ever in this country in terms of trusting one another. he's divided us based on immigration, saying that conservatives are the enemy because we have a different philosophy on granting amnesty and that sort of thing. but the war against woman is the most stark example of how history to pit americans against one another. i will say there probably is a war against women happening here, but it's not coming from the conservative side. it's a shame we are using words like war against women, but i'll get to that in a minute. the reality is this administration is the health and human services mandate not to have discussion about religious bertie and what religious organizations should be compelled to do, but instead is an oppo
unionization bills and crazy new deficit spending. it's the same old mitch mcconnell, same operation. and he will block president obama's agenda. it's basically selling out the efforts of the progressives in this country, in my opinion. let's turn to senator bernie sanders of vermont, who is the only member of the democratic caucus to vote against the so-called filibuster reform. senator, good to have you with us tonight. i'd like you to respond to that fundraising letter of mitch mcconnell. i mean, are things going to change? are we going to see the same old mitch? >> look, at the end of the day, what that legislation did is made it easier for some cabinet appointees to take their jobs. that's important. it's going to speed up the process in the senate. that's important. but at the end of the day, ed, this country faces enormous economic crises. we've got to deal with global warming. we've got to deal with education. we have to deal with deficit reduction. we are not going to be able to do what the american people want if we have to get 60 votes. and as a result of that agreement, we're goi
, and everybody stopped spending but you know the seed0s the last quarter's gdp were sow n in the summer of 2012 when president obama put politics ahead of our national security or any economic growth. its its ridiculous. >> that's the most important word, growth. when the economy opportunity grow you have no way of digging yourself out of the ditch. the 16-1/2 trillion ditch. here's my point. if the government stops pending, if the economy is so weak that when the government does stop spending, it goes into a neglect testify growth or recessioner in period, that's not the sign of a healthy economy? >> if agree with you. but keep in mine what i'm homing now, eric, we city a little stability, at least until 2014 elections. we know that people over 200,000 a year are going to pay 4-1/2% more in tax. we know there's certain stability. let's hope we wet through the debt ceiling crisis, and then you'll see the private sector invest. if there's one thing this president is going to be known for, he is all over the social issues, guns and gay marriage and healthcare but has done nothing to help this eco
income, and spending is obvious because a surreal driver of our deficits and our debt. spending is the reason that we're up against the $16.2 trillion debt limit. spending was the reason that congress and president obama raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion just a year and a half ago. now, in 2006, the junior senator from illinois, senator obama, came to the floor, made a very passionate and thoughtful statement here on the senate floor in opposition to raising the debt limit. many of the reasons that he gave then are relevant today. in fact, they are even more appropriate because the national debt is much, much higher. and we have a fiscal mess. it's instructive for my colleagues to hear the words straight from then-senator obama. he delivered these remarks on march 16, 2006. at that time the senate was debating raising the debt limit by $781 billion to a new limit then that seems very small today, about half what it is today, raising the limit of 2006 to $8.9 trillion. so i thought it would be worth for the president's benefit as well as our benefit to go over what then-se
covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. >> the obama administration likes to say they're doing everything they can to keep spending down. right? >> we're consolidating programs that are duplicative. how can we eliminate additional waste? >> we also wanted to protect against any and all cases of waste, fraud and abuse. >>brian: a new study indicates that despite their intentions, big government is still wasting millions and possibly billions of dollars in duplicate funding for research. stuart varney is here. the economy is not growing. we expected something different because the jobs numbers look pretty good. >>steve: our economy at the moment is contracting, and that's -- look, a whole bunch of excuses as to why this is happening. years ago it was the tsunami. that's what's hurting. then it was the wicked europeans. then it was those wicked republicans. now of course it's president bush all over again. or sanding or lower defense spending. there's always an excuse. the fact is we've spent an enormous amount of money -- trillions of dollars -- building up o
they didn't know. >> it is just the beginning there elements of obama care that have not yet been put into effect. we will spend the next year or two or five or ten allergic what's in this massive piece of legislation. it's going to be like christmas. >> go to ff weekend on twitter and let us know how you feel he about that story. also this story. remember this teacher down in south carolina? he in his classroom there in an effort to show how incredible freedom in this country is, and freedom of speech, ripped an american flag off of the wall in one ever american classments on three different occasions and stomped on it to show his class, he says is an educational exercise that this is freedom of speech. this is why america is free because we are able to express ourselves in this way without being thrown in prison. he was fired for that. now he wants his job back. >> it sounds like, i mean, well, let me get the other side. it sounds like first during this lesson he spoke glowingly of the united states and of the freedoms and privileges we have here. is he not known as anti-american te
-- i've said it time and time again -- on taxes. on cutting spending. on saving entitlements. on saving america from this crushing national debt. it grew $6 trillion under barack obama over the past term. and try to avoid some of these other issues. but i hear bobby jindal's new federalism on crack talking about cutting federal employees by three-quarters, et cetera, et cetera. that ain't going to happen. with the changing demographics and where america is and where it's going over the next 20 every 30 years. >> that's the issue. if you separate it, i think the first part not being the stupid party anymore is sort of a no-brainer. why would you go around insulting important interest groups. >> women. >> yeah, the 47%, all that stuff. but then you get to his policy proposals, and i don't think he's in the mainstream of this country when you talk about 25% of the government buildings, cutting employees. you know, every poll, joe, as you know, even of republicans say people want these services. they just don't want to pay as much taxes. they want to have the spending disciplined. but i don
affirmative done is going to come from those leverage points he cuts president obama has indicated, sadly, he has no interest in being bill clinton, tacking to the middle, compromising with anybody. the only way we are going to restrain the out-of-control spending and that that is threatening our future is to use the leverage points to force real solutions. so, that is the short-term. what about the long-term? what about strategically? or as "saturday night live would -- saturday night live" would put it, what about "strat egery." why did we lose in 2012? margaret thatcher said first you win the argument, then you win the vote. we did not win the argument. long-term, we have to win the argument, and i will suggest to words every republican in this country should have tattooed on their forearm to read in any speech -- growth and opportunity. let's talk about them one at a time. world -- growth -- there was a time when republicans were unabashedly the party of growth. we need to return to that. you know, since world war ii, our economy has grown an average of 3.3%. under barack obama in the las
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)